If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Rand Paul thinks congress should get veteran's benefits, food stamps and the special Medal of Honor stipend. OK, he doesn't really think that, but he's brilliantly crafted a constitutional amendment that would make it happen   (opposingviews.com) divider line 36
    More: Stupid, Medal of Honor, food stamps, constitutional amendments, welfare benefits, Americans, proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, Medal of Honor recipients  
•       •       •

10650 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2013 at 1:37 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-22 12:14:42 PM
7 votes:
The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?
2013-10-22 12:45:24 PM
6 votes:
Oh, and for the curious, here's the actual proposed language:

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

First off, this seems tautological, since all members of Congress are citizens of the US, so all laws which apply to a citizen of the US also, by default, applies to Congress.

Second, it doesn't necessarily go the other way, it doesn't say that any law applicable to members of Congress are necessarily applicable to all citizens of the US, which means that you can craft as many exemptions as you want, and as long as they are tailored specifically to Congress it doesn't violate this amendment.

So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.
2013-10-22 12:26:29 PM
4 votes:

Mrbogey: why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


You know, I was just thinking the same thing
2013-10-22 11:52:08 AM
4 votes:

Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."


Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?
2013-10-22 02:39:22 PM
2 votes:
Of course, the "exemption" was never an exemption at all. The new law requires only that Americans have some kind of health care coverage. Only people who are currently uninsured are required to buy insurance through the online health insurance exchanges created by the law (or through some other means).

No one who currently receives insurance through an employer, private or governmental, would be required to do anything different.


I'm not surprised that Rand Paul doesn't understand this, but I'm sort of sad he doesn't.
2013-10-22 02:23:14 PM
2 votes:
Berate the Tea Party all day long if you like, but there is a point here.  Congress should not make laws which they or their political allies are exempt from while the rest of us have to abide.  I think that a constitutional amendment to that effect, but short of the Tea Party somehow gaining much more influence or more likely a new Sulla or Marius coming to the fore it will not happen.  And yes there are several exceptions for different (influential) entities and groups within the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare that they are loath to advertise, along with several other groups seeking exemptions.
2013-10-22 02:01:35 PM
2 votes:
Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them? I have no problem with a veteran Senator getting VA benefits. I have no problem with a destitute Congressman getting food stamps (they'd never qualify). I have a hell of a lot less than zero problem with a Medal of Honor winning Speaker of the House receiving their MoH stipend.

If they qualify, why the hell not?

Or I am completely missing the point of the "analysis" of the proposed amendment?

The ThinkProgress article even delves into Senate Rules, which (if I am not mistaken) would not be applicable in this case, as they are not laws.
2013-10-22 11:55:03 AM
2 votes:

what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid?


Yes.
2013-10-23 10:32:58 AM
1 votes:
Rand Paul is so goddamn stupid it's staggering. How does he have a cult following.
2013-10-22 04:52:40 PM
1 votes:

HAMMERTOE: teenytinycornteeth: This is a new one, and I'm excited to read it here on Fark. You're saying that the purpose of the healthcare exchanges is a thinly veiled ploy by the government to gather information on my need for an annual pap smear? Fantastical. And now i get why some people are going to say they are unable to shop for new insurance on the exchanges...because they don't want the evil gub'mint all up in their business, spying on them as they pick out a pediatrician.

Not sure about the veracity of the poster, but I can testify to the fact that the ACA forced me from my wife's insurance plan onto my own employer's plan, which is nowhere near as good.


I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "forced"
2013-10-22 04:18:25 PM
1 votes:
Rand Paul think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be overturned, so he's not the font of wisdom his worshippers put him up to be.
2013-10-22 04:14:22 PM
1 votes:

HAMMERTOE: Wow. Just... wow.

A Congressperson attempts to promote a law which substantially closes the "Class Gap" between Legislators and the common citizen, and all people can do is argue semantics and the typical "Republican vs. Democrat" rhetoric.

We are truly farked. We are stuck between  the greedy and the avaricious.


No, see, that's spin. What's happening here is that an idiot drafted up a ridiculous bill with huge flaws in it as another in a long line of foolish publicity stunts. Nothing about this relates to any serious attempt to pursue class equality. We're more farked if people really fall for that excuse.
2013-10-22 04:13:25 PM
1 votes:
You can choose to believe what you will, but I'm telling you guys, Obamacare is a BAD idea. Rand Paul is batshiat crazy, Ted Cruz is a farking Neo Nazi  and I'm terrified for all of us poor farkers who have to break our asses for a living every day.
2013-10-22 03:57:56 PM
1 votes:
Wow. Just... wow.

A Congressperson attempts to promote a law which substantially closes the "Class Gap" between Legislators and the common citizen, and all people can do is argue semantics and the typical "Republican vs. Democrat" rhetoric.

We are truly farked. We are stuck between  the greedy and the avaricious.
2013-10-22 03:30:34 PM
1 votes:

what_now: Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


He thinks we are.

Remember, he's a Republican, and their usual electoral strategy is to throw full-bore derp out into the public, see what gets some traction, and repeat the lies until they get results.  No facts, no substance, just spin and propaganda.

Sad thing is, it works a good chunk of the time.
2013-10-22 03:27:35 PM
1 votes:

ShardingGreat: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

Oh, but they CAN force you to choose a new provider. Allow me to explain, my dear Watson. First, I work in the financial side of the healthcare industry. An actual primary care physician's practice, so I have the credentials to answer this question. There are insurance companies being forced to drop all types of coverage plans in order to comply with Obamacare. Some new plans are only hand picking a small (comparitively) group of participating physicians to participate with the "affordable" plan. Your health care is going to cost you more and provide less coverage. Your current physician may not be included to participate with the plans your current coverage offers or because the allowed amount (the amount the physician is actually paid) is reduced to the point of ridiculous and the doctor chooses to no long participate with your plan because he'd practically be working for free. What happens then? You are forced to choose a new physician in order to accomodate your health insurance plan or pay for your own insurance out of pocket in order to keep seeing your choice of a physician. This will cost you an astronomical amount of money.

Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.



The Farker you're trying to troll lives in Massachusetts , where 'ObamaCare' has been running strong since 2006 when Romney passed it into law.
2013-10-22 03:25:37 PM
1 votes:
Rand Paul thinks

forum.sportsmogul.com

I don't read political fiction.
2013-10-22 03:02:05 PM
1 votes:
 THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS NOT A POLITICAL PARTY.

It is a financial venture for people who want to make an obscene amount of money through short-term exploitation, at the cost of long-term consequences they will not live to see.

They DO NOT believe what they say.
They DO NOT have loyalty to a party.
They DO NOT hate what you hate.

They speak and act in any way that they think you want to them to, in order to gather your support and donations, and make obscene profits, and then move on in 5-8 years.

This requires a complete lack of empathy, and the willingness to screw not only you, me, and everyone else; they must be perfectly happy to screw GENERATIONS of people.  You, your children, your grandchildren, and at least SEVEN generations of Americans will suffer the effects of their actions.  And they don't care.  they don't.  They really don't.  They sleep comfortably, warm, and sound.  They truly DO NOT feel bad about what they have done, and are doing.  They grin when they think how they'll be dead long before all the bad things happen to everyone, everywhere.  They are sociopaths.  They truly believe they are LIFE'S WINNERS.

After all... they got rich.
2013-10-22 02:42:18 PM
1 votes:

Fark_Guy_Rob: nmrsnr: Oh, and for the curious, here's the actual proposed language:

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

First off, this seems tautological, since all members of Congress are citizens of the US, so all laws which apply to a citizen of the US also, by default, applies to Congress.

Second, it doesn't necessarily go the other way, it doesn't say that any law applicable to members of Congress are necessarily applicable to all citizens of the US, which means that you can craft as many exemptions as you want, and as long as they are tailored specifically to Congress it doesn't violate this amendment.

So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.

So it is a law that will do nothing *and* be really popular with idiots?   Isn't this the very core of what politicians hope for?


Yep, see gun control.
2013-10-22 02:41:56 PM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?

That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.

No other employer in the US can opt into ACA exchanges and pay 80% of the costs. Not one. But OMB declared that ability for the federal government.

The correct action would be offering a raise that offset exchanges costs, not what OMB did.


Setting aside the trivial matter that your numbers are wrong, the federal government's contribution to its employees' health insurance premiums is a part of their pay. What you are arguing is that Congressmen and their staffers should take a pay cut (a pretty sizable one at that) and not that they should be treated the same as employees of private companies.
2013-10-22 02:41:08 PM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Define data. There is data showing companies dropping coverage. That is data. Are you that slow?


But what kind of data is it? And how is it being used?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176711/nothing-ted-cruz-said-about-aca -t oday-true#

"No doubt the health law is imposingsome additional costs on employers, though once again Cruz elides any debate over the benefit trade-offs involved. But even UPS is emphasizing (not that Republicans will listen) that the ACA isn't a controlling factor in ending spousal benefits. "One way of saying this is that we are restructuring our benefits 'because of the ACA'-but that's not accurate," Andy McGowan, a UPS spokesman, told Cohn. "We are doing this because we are looking at many different factors adding to our costs, and ACA is one of them."

Finally, you might have wondered if UPS only has 15,000 employees. It does not! The company is only ending the benefits of spouses who already have a job where they can get health insurance. In other words, not a single person is actually losing coverage because of this move. Cruz doesn't mention that."


Then as regards the whole congressional exemption, it's mostly mythology. 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/network.asp 

And that's the problem with Rand Paul's whole approach. It's not that congress is exempt, it's that many of these bills aren't aimed at them. The ACA is largely about expanding insurance coverage to more people. Members of Congress already have excellent insurance coverage. Those aspects of the ACA shouldn't apply to them. So Paul is rallying stupidly around a stupid cause. 

It sure would be nice if certain instances where Congress is exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us would be eliminated, but Rand Paul noticeably isn't referring to those.  He's just show boating around the ACA, because he's an idiot, and trying to portray this as some noble effort to end Congressional corruption is crap.
2013-10-22 02:37:30 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?

That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.


The thing is, they see themselves as Congressmen, not citizens.  They are the elite, not civilians  They are your better, and above you.  It's only fitting that they should share the bounty that the mere citizen receives.  They worked so hard to bring it to you, after all.  That's how I read it: they are deserving of special considerations above and beyond the typical citizen, since they aim to never again rejoin the citizenry/want to stay in office indefinitely.
2013-10-22 02:27:00 PM
1 votes:

antidumbass: Rand "Ayn" Paul sure as hell ain't Ron. Guess which one doesn't give a fark about personal liberties. Just another stuffed suit.


If you can only guess one, there is no wrong answer.
2013-10-22 02:24:16 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?



Some people pay 5 bucks a month to do it.
2013-10-22 02:17:46 PM
1 votes:
Uh, wouldn't that mean that Congress would be under the same eligibility rules as any American citizen? Congresscritters couldn't get welfare benifits without poverty means testing, and Congresscritters couldn't get a Medal of Honor without being a member of the military, and carrying out extreme examples of conspicuous gallantry and valor on the field of battle?
2013-10-22 02:16:56 PM
1 votes:
Old and Busted: Propose changes to legislation that are never going to pass and throw a tantrum and shut down the government to prove you mean business.

New Hotness: Proposing constitutional amendments that will never gain traction and then claiming the other side hates the constitution and that this is why we need a Constitutional Convention. (Which will also never happen)
2013-10-22 02:09:03 PM
1 votes:
He's not the sharpest bowling ball in the knife drawer.
2013-10-22 02:09:03 PM
1 votes:
Ask him about his ophthalmology board certification.  When you can't operate within the rules, you make new rules.  Calvinball!
2013-10-22 02:04:56 PM
1 votes:

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?


That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.
2013-10-22 02:00:53 PM
1 votes:

naughtyrev: Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.


No, it means that Congress couldn't continue to skirt the law that prevents the rest of us from getting those sweet insider trading laws.  Which is one of a million reasons why this Amendment won't go anywhere.
2013-10-22 01:54:56 PM
1 votes:
So he wants... what does he want? Does he want members of Congress to use the health care exchanges instead of the FEHB program? Because that's like the exact opposite of what he's promoting. All americans can participate in their employer sponsored health care program. If you require Congress to use the Exchange rather than FEHB, then you're actually exempting Congress from something the rest of America is subject to.

This sounds like it would actually do that exact opposite of what he wants it to do?

I'm so confused.
2013-10-22 01:50:50 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
yay i get to pull this out again
2013-10-22 12:48:37 PM
1 votes:

nmrsnr: So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.


Teabagger efficiency strikes again.
2013-10-22 12:39:54 PM
1 votes:
Oh if only I had worn my anti-glue suit, all of these sharp and witty barbs, which were completely unforeseeable, wouldn't have stuck to me.
2013-10-22 12:36:06 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


Why did I read your post?

Good question...
2013-10-22 11:44:42 AM
1 votes:
Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report